Mr. Francie Gorman:

I thank the Chair and the members for the invitation to address the committee today. I am joined by John Curran and Shane Whelan.

In the context of the general scheme, an independent agricultural appeals panel is something for which we have been lobbying for many years. This day has been a long time coming. The establishment of an independent agricultural appeals panel was one of the key recommendations in the Review of the Agriculture Appeals Act, 2001 and operations of the Agriculture Appeals Office, completed and published in December 2017. That is well over six years ago.

The establishment of an independent agriculture appeals review panel was one of the key recommendations included in the review of the Agriculture Appeals Act 2001 and operations of the agriculture appeals office, completed and published in December 2017, well over six years ago now. This independent review group was established by the then Minister for agriculture, Deputy Michael Creed, in response to the concerns of farmers. These concerns are as relevant today as they were then.

The current structure whereby the director of appeals, who is appointed directly by the Minister for agriculture and who reports to the Minister, can hardly be considered fully independent. A similar structure is used in the forestry appeals committee. Similarly, most of the appeals officers came from the Department of agriculture. Under the current appeals structure, they are asked to make important decisions on cases where farmers are appealing decisions made against former colleagues. While we acknowledge that the appeals office does a good job in general, the perception is that officers are effectively Department staff.

The establishment of an independent agricultural appeals review panel would offer potential to ease some of these concerns. However, the proposed model outlined in the general scheme falls well short of what we would expect. The recommendation of the independent review group that an independent chair be appointed has been overlooked. Instead, as with the director of appeals, it is left to the Minister's discretion to appoint the chairperson of the panel. At a minimum, an independent board with independent members should be established. Those members would then select an independent chairperson. Similarly, our proposal for having at least one farmer representative on the independent review panel and any division thereof is specifically provided for in the general scheme. We believe this is a missed opportunity. Farmers must have confidence in the system. The provision of an independent chair and greater farmer representation would certainly give more confidence to stakeholders.

The independent agriculture appeals review panel needs to be established as soon as possible. Its scope needs to be extended to all appeal cases, not solely those relating to the law and-or new facts being presented. During the last Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, programme, over 5,000 appeals were lodged, with a ten-year average of 668 per annum being submitted. The new CAP, which spans the period 2023 to 2027, is fundamentally different from predecessor. There are numerous new schemes and concepts which bring considerably more complexity, administration and bureaucracy for all stakeholders. The transition from a compliance-based scheme to a results-based scheme in particular will increase the potential volume of associated inspections, penalties and appeals relative to previous levels. The same is true for many nationally funded schemes and the Department-administered schemes and programmes that farmers participate in.

The new reality, combined with an increased reliance on third-party farm planners and consultants and the emergence of a new monitoring infrastructure, namely, the area monitoring system, AMS, which, across Europe, has been shown to increase significantly the number of ground inspections required, will, in turn, likely increase the number of reviews and appeals needed. We need a fully functioning, independent and efficient appeals process. The reality is that some of the penalties being imposed by the Department are now higher than would normally apply in a court of law. The consequences for individual farmers are significant. The process must be robust and it has to be seen to be fair and transparent.

We have a list of how important the direct payments are to the various different sectors. I will not go into that.

In addition to the need for greater independence and farmer representation, as previously mentioned, there are a number of proposals within the general scheme that require clarification. The first relates to the operation of the proposed divisional units of the review panel. Will these simply be a condensed version of the review panel when a full quorum is not available or will they be dedicated or segmented units set up to engage specifically on appeals relating to individual schemes or for urgent cases? What weighting will be assigned to the decisions of the divisional groups? Does the provision in the proposed new section 15B(1), which deals with prohibited disclosures, extend to persons involved in divisional units of the independent review panel? If so, this needs to be specified.

What is considered best practice for the operation of the review panel regarding the prior notification of appeals, whether physical or oral? What is the expected turnaround of appeal decisions and so on? These are not clearly outlined. While the inclusion of limitation periods for seeking reviews may support greater transparency and efficiency of operations, farmers must have the facility to seek an appeal in circumstances where the timeline for lodging an appeal has elapsed, especially where there are mitigating circumstances or new evidence or facts emerge regarding the case. Clarification is also required in respect of the approach relating to the appeals process and what the requirements will be, particularly where cases are brought forward as a result of the emergence of new facts. Will appeal decisions be reviewed by other appeals officers, for which there is a six-month window for, or can this step be bypassed in favour of going straight to the independent review panel, for which there is a three-month window of opportunity from the date of an appeals officer's decision? Clarification is also needed in respect of the proposed new section 15A(1) because no text is currently provided.

The IFA suggests, in the context of the proposed provision in head 5 to the effect that"An appeals officer may hold any oral hearing remotely by electronic means" should only apply where this is agreed by the appellant. Face-to-face meetings enable more meaningful engagement. Given our ageing demographic, connectivity issues and the potential need to share supporting documentation during exchanges, the option of using electronic means may not be the most suitable for all appeal hearings. That said, it may work and be the preferred option for some farmers. It is best to give farmers a full range of options in order that they can decide the most favourable for their individual circumstances.

Every effort should be made to improve the efficiency of the appeals process. There needs to be greater transparency with regard to individual payments. For example, agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, participants are only told their score after being paid. Under the current appeals process, the appeals officer is confined to making decisions only in the context of the terms and conditions of the relevant scheme. The IFA considers this to be too restrictive. Elsewhere, farmers need to better utilise and be made aware of the review process. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine needs to better honour information requests from the agriculture appeals office. Currently, the return time is double the required standard, that is, 28 days versus two weeks. There should be a facility to award the appeal if the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine refuses to reply within a reasonable time limit.

Individual terms and conditions need to be more clearly defined. ACRES, for example, has been a mess this year because of the complexities involved. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine needs to send out physical copies or issue a bulletin outlining the individual requirements of the scheme year ahead in order to provide greater awareness and minimise non-compliance, penalties and-or subsequent appeals.

The Shannon Callows flood scheme is a good example of the lack of key detail and questionable screening technology. Many have suggested that the AMS technology failed to identify flooded parcels, particularly those with heavy covers. Many were excluded from the scheme and would have made appeals or reviews to the Department of agriculture as a result. The IFA has raised this matter with the Minister and the Department on multiple occasions in order to address and minimise the volume of appeals received, We will continue to lobby strongly in order that all impacted farmers are fully compensated for the financial loss incurred.

Sufficient funding and resources must be allocated to facilitate implementation of the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development 2030 and all recommendations of the aquaculture licensing review. This includes resources for the aquaculture licence appeals board. This body must have sufficient technical and administrative resources to deal with appeals in a speedy and timely manner.

The following are a few core principles from an IFA perspective with regard the agriculture appeals system which need to be considered. Farmers must be treated fairly. All application forms should be made simple and straightforward. The Department should engage more proactively with farmers. A system must be in place with dedicated staff in the Department of agriculture to deal with problem issues which farmers have. Farmers must not unduly disadvantaged, penalised or prone to increased on-farm inspections following direct or indirect advances in available technology. The level of ongoing monitoring of on-farm activity must be proportionate and similar to that afforded to other employment cohorts. The inspection regime should move to one that helps people to become more compliant. The dignity and rights of farmers must be fully respected at all times, with reasonable and fair procedures, as per the Department code of conduct, executed at all times and there must be proper procedures where complaints arise. No inspector should arrive on a farm without reasonable notice. The Department should provide a written summary of the findings and a final notice of the breaches made before the inspector leaves the farm. Every farmer should have a right to appeal all decisions made by the Department of agriculture without fear of intimidation or subsequent disadvantage.